The problem with APS-C is that due to the high pixel density, you need Lglass quality to take advantage of that pixel density, yet the normal kit lenses offered fall far short of the required quality.

Compact cameras have far greater pixel density than APS-C.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for high pixel density is hard/expensive". Just like it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for large image circles is hard/expensive". What seems to be the case is that designing good lenses for high pixel density and large image circle simultaneously (i.e. "many megapixels") is hard.

I dont think that a good lense for a (12MP) 5D classic ought to be all _that_ different in price from that for a good (12MP) m4/3 camera (aside from economy of scale, shipping and such things). The FF lense would have to cover a relatively large image circle with moderate MTF, while the m43 lense would have to cover a smaller image circle with higher MTF.

-h

One thing you are missing is how easy it is to optimize glass for a given sensor size. Optimizing lenses for a small sensor is actually fairly easy, as the surface area and volume of the lens elements themselves is fairly small. It is quite easy to get optimal center-to-corner performance with a micro lens for the tiny sensors you might find in a cheap P&S, Phone cam, etc. Optimizing glass for optimal center-to-corner performance for larger sensors becomes more and more difficult the larger the sensor gets. That is why high quality glass for MFD cams is so expensive...it really requires a lot of expertise and precision and high-end technology to achieve.

Yes, pixel density in small form factor sensors is very high, as much as 2x higher than the pixel density of the 7D. However the total sensor area of the 7D can be many times larger than that of a small form factor sensor, thus putting a much greater "load" on the lens, especially at the edges and corners. The sample photos I posted are mid-way between center and corner. I chose those pictures because the performance of pretty much any lens at the very center is usually quite ideal...lens performance trends away from optimal as you head towards the corners. When you get close enough to a bird, for example, and actually fill the frame with your subject, the difference between center and corner performance can be quite meaningful, especially if a non-centered composition is ideal. I don't believe there is any question about the quality of top-end L-series glass on the 7D, relative to low-end L-series glass. The difference in sharpness, clarity, microcontrast, etc. is pretty remarkable.

The problem with APS-C is that due to the high pixel density, you need Lglass quality to take advantage of that pixel density, yet the normal kit lenses offered fall far short of the required quality.

Compact cameras have far greater pixel density than APS-C.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for high pixel density is hard/expensive". Just like it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for large image circles is hard/expensive". What seems to be the case is that designing good lenses for high pixel density and large image circle simultaneously (i.e. "many megapixels") is hard.

I dont think that a good lense for a (12MP) 5D classic ought to be all _that_ different in price from that for a good (12MP) m4/3 camera (aside from economy of scale, shipping and such things). The FF lense would have to cover a relatively large image circle with moderate MTF, while the m43 lense would have to cover a smaller image circle with higher MTF.

-h

Take a peek at Jrista's excellent post above...

We have reached the point where the resolving power of high megapixel FF cameras and APS-C cameras are approaching the manufacturing limits of lenses. A series 2 prime chunk of Lglass exceeds this limit, most GOOD Lglass primes are around the limit, and just about everything else below.... with kit glass way below. We are using manufacturing tolerences and polishing techniques where it is getting down to the point where they are talking about layers of atoms being removed....it is almost insane how precise they can be made.....but it comes down to what cost...

Aye, I would say that Mark II L Primes definitely exceed the limit. Based on what I have seen with the Mark II telephoto primes I've rented, Canon is probably set for a march up to 60 or 70 MP FF sensors, if not more. That would in the 2-3 micron pixel size range at the top end, which is getting down to the realm of large-pixel small form factor pixel densities (2 microns or so). I believe that, if the next Canon APS-C is around 24.4mp, then we would be approaching the limit again...that would be the equivalent of a 63-64mp FF sensor. I can't see FF sensors reaching that high of pixel density for the next 5-10 years, though...and if Canon really is pushing for a broader range of FF DSLR cameras with a diminishing APS-C footprint over the years, then I think the new Mark II lens generation is setting Canon up for the next decade of high density, high IQ large form factor image sensors.

And my last input, considering Canon sensors. What I learned from different articles is, that Canon is still using a 0.5um process for their CMOS sensors, while Sony has already upgraded to 0.18um. This is one reason why Canon lacks behind in sensor technology. But this is not a technology Canon has to develop, these are just machines they buy from other companys to produce their sensors. Canon already owns machines that are capable of a 0.18um process, but does not use them for CMOS sensors yet. So I expect Canon will make the switch pretty soon (maybe the high megapixel camera is a hint for that; Canon also said that at the moment 18MP APS-C sensors are ideal for them, which makes sense in this context).

I fear that it's not just the 0.5um process but Canon generally lacks behind sensor technology.

Canon is simply forced to push their customers to FF because they cannot compete in the APS-C arena (or in general with DSLR bodies with high pixel density=small pixels).

With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete with sensors using more inventive technology...

Defiine 'compete'. Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras. Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

Defiine 'compete'. Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras. Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

Neuro... I seldom disagree with you... but this seems to me like the guy who jumped off the empire state building and all the way down yelled, see I am ok, I am still winning.... untill... SPLATT!

I for one hope Canon can licence tech that gives them a 1 stop RAW advantage like this Pana patent seems to indicate.

With this ongoing wait we seem to be in, I'm starting to get the impression that Canon will release the 7D2 and 70D simultaneously, or near enough, with the same new sensor. 700D will get it at some point in summer.

If they were going to release it as a warmed-over 60D, they would have done it already to coincide with the 650D.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If its a big enough let-down, the 6D should be a fair bit cheaper by then anyway.

Defiine 'compete'. Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras. Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

Neuro... I seldom disagree with you... but this seems to me like the guy who jumped off the empire state building and all the way down yelled, see I am ok, I am still winning.... untill... SPLATT!

I would offer that it seems that way because you hang out in forums where the majority of members obsess over meaningless minutia that 90% or more of the camera-bearing world really doesn't give the first flying rat's ass (even the ass of the rat that jumped off the empire state building ) about.

People primarily care about taking pictures, and it is only a fleeting minority that care so deeply about IQ or DR that they spend a significant percentage of their lives debating the merits of "Sensor A" vs. "Sensor B". Every camera on the market today is so good it puts the majority of cameras from the prior generation to shame. The complaints about things like low ISO banding noise may be valid in microniches, but for the very vast majority of photographers, they never push or pull exposure around by more than a stop, maybe two at most. Most photographers simply reject a photo that is improperly exposed, rather than expending any time and effort, which is usually just a synonym for money, trying to salvage it.

In that respect, Canon does a better job making cameras for photographers, rather than refining technology for obsessive-compulsive minutia-entwined techno-babbling batshit-crazy should-be-out-photographing-something wackos like myself and so many others on this forum.

That must be why Panasonic is the largest manufacturer of DSLRs, oh wait they're not.

Canon seems to be in a comfortable position right now. The generate sales and money. Most may not read (or value) the DXO numbers.

The danger of being in that position is that you may become defensive. Why spend $1 billion on R&D/upgraded manufacturing processes if you can be a dominant player without it?

I think there are some signs that Canon are on the defensive (pre-releasing cameras/lenses by a year, a mirror-less camera that seems like they want to tag along but not lead), but I think it would be wrong to claim that "With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete... "

-h

I do agree with that, very sensible comment. I'm bored with people saying Canon as a company is doomed because of this and that. Being a market leader is not the easiest thing, management could start to lose their sense of urgency - becoming complacent. It wouldn't be the first time in corporate history. Toyota focused too much on being number one and over a couple of years started to take shortcuts in product quality which used to be their top selling argument.

I don't know enough history in this business about who used to be the market leader and why that company lost it etc, but surely it must have happened.

But going back to what many smart people are saying on this forum; the sensor is only one of many important components going into a camera system.

That must be why Panasonic is the largest manufacturer of DSLRs, oh wait they're not.

Panasonic is selling their real estate, like sony, to have some cash to continue their business

anyway a great achievement, but i guess the sensors using this need a lot of reworking

I actually didn't bother to click on the link, I would probably not have understood what was discussed anyway. I didn't know Panasonic was in that much trouble, Sony though, it seems like they have been in all sorts of problems the last decade, TVs, phones, cameras and now even their game consoles. Impressive they are able to develop this fine technology under those circumstances.

first flying rat's ass (even the ass of the rat that jumped off the empire state building ) about.

BUT...

If we had a better AF system and a Longer wider aperture lens and more DR on higher MP sensors we could get better pics of the rat jumping off the building

I'd still bet on the 7D Mark II capturing every single rat ass hair, while the D800 with all its stupendous DR would only capture the rat ass itself, even if the rat butt crack had more tonality in those scary deep rat crack shadows than one would care to admit (or explore, with even a single stop shadow pull in post).

first flying rat's ass (even the ass of the rat that jumped off the empire state building ) about.

BUT...

If we had a better AF system and a Longer wider aperture lens and more DR on higher MP sensors we could get better pics of the rat jumping off the building

I'd still bet on the 7D Mark II capturing every single rat ass hair, while the D800 with all its stupendous DR would only capture the rat ass itself, even if the rat butt crack had more tonality in those scary deep rat crack shadows than one would care to admit (or explore, with even a single stop shadow pull in post).

No need for that. Jump off with the rat and even your camera phone will get a great shot!

In that respect, Canon does a better job making cameras for photographers, rather than refining technology for obsessive-compulsive minutia-entwined techno-babbling batshit-crazy should-be-out-photographing-something wackos like myself and so many others on this forum.